Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/587

 EiLGOBB V. oaoss. 679 �soach, drawn by four horses, himself driving. In or near Hot Springs the horses drawing the coach took fright, ran away and overturned the coach, seriously injuring the plain- tiff. The extent and character of this injury is the turning point in this case and will be more fuUy considered hereaf ter. �On the next day after he received his injury the plaintiff directed one of his hired men to take his coach and five horses to Little Eock and sell or trade them at his discretion, and on the sixteenth of July his hired man proceeded to Little Eock with the property upon the understanding that he was to sell or dispose of the same for the plaintiff according to his own discretion, unless the plaintiff should, himself, go to Little Eock by rail the next day. �On the seventeenth of July the stock and coach arrived at Little Eock, and were put up at defendants' stable, and îo the aftemoon of the same day the plaintiff arrived by rail. The next day the plaintiff and defendants effected an exchange of property, as foUows : the plaintiff gave the defendants his five horses, two sets of harness, and stage coach and $150, for an old glass front Clarence carriage. The $150 was not paid in' money, but the plaintifï gave his notes for that sum ; and, to secure its payment, executed to defendants a mort- gage on the carriage. The defendants loaned plaintifï a Bpan of horses to haul the carriage which he received in the trade to Hot Springs, and it was driven to the latter place by the plaintiff's hired man. �The plaintiff arrived at Hot Springs with the carriage on the nineteenth or twentieth of July, and within a week there- after returned to Little Eock with the carriage, and tendered it back to the defendants and demanded a return of the prop- erty which they had received from him for the carriage, upon the ground that at the time he made the trade he was non compos mentis. �The defendants refused to rescind the trade, and thereupon the plaintiff filed his bill, alleging that by reason of the injury plaintiff received when thrown from his coach he was, at the time of the trade, incapable of transacting business, or knowing what he was doing, and was in f act non compos mentis; ��� �